Bearknuckle said:BEAR 45 said:Bearknuckle said:BEAR 45 said:Robert Wilson said:BEAR 45 said:Robert Wilson said:BEAR 45 said:
Baylor has had weeks to keep this story out of the local paper or make a statement to the press
You old biddies are delusional.
Not that it matters, but I don't think you understood what I was implicating. Baylor, yes Baylor issues a press statement about investigating their AD and at the same time tells everyone it is really not a Baylor related issue,. Why ? They almost assuredly already knew what the truth was when they made the release. If Mac was having an affair with a Baylor employee, or especially a subordinate in his department, they would have grounds to fire him without facing legal challenge, but if it was not a Baylor employee, they needed to force his resignation to keep from having a legal challenge. Baylor has not made a single comment since announcing the investigation and the press has not touched the issue either. Coincidence ?? I am sure Baylor had no influence in making the situation simply go away. Mac was only making close to $10,000/day on his contract, what would a buyout have cost? Problem solved, the Baylor Way.
Ok, I didn't follow you. When you said "keep this story" out of the local paper or make a statement to the press, I assumed you meant the subject of this thread. Yes, Baylor basically said to the public 'this is none of your business' and left it at that. And Baylor was correct in doing so.
My point is ALSO , Baylor was the one that brought this to the public space, not Mac or the woman. I am in no way condoning the behavior or moral issues surrounding this issue, however Baylor showed little concern for the woman's family [ especially children if any ] and the embarrassment by bringing this into the public sphere. That goes for Mac's children as well . If you intend to do an internal investigation of something that is not illegal, only morally wrong, you do not broadcast it to the
public as innuendo . You proceed
, in private, with finding the facts and then confronting the parties , in private, if there is a problem. This was NEVER an issue for the public
Where did the university publicly mention adultery, let alone the woman's identity?
OK What was Baylor's reason for making ANY disclosure of an internal investigation ?? Look up the definition of innuendo for reference. People outside Waco won't know or care who the woman is, but I will bet that is not the case in Waco.
Clearly people of Waco already knew before any Baylor-related stories broke...several posters have said that the affair was common knowledge in some social circles here in town.
How exactly was Baylor supposed to let go of Mack without anyone in the community spiling tea about his indiscretions?
Have you read any of my previous comments ? If Mac violated his contract in any way , or if his contract contained a "morals" clause, you simply FIRE him for cause. If they did not have cause, contractually violated, then you try and publicly shame him into quitting. Which one do you think happened ? Shameful tactic when you don't really care who else gets burned in the process.
